Case 3202413/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Copeland v Manor of Groves Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202413/2018
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Daniels, Mr M Wood
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Copeland
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing was listed for 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021 at the East London Hearing Centre, with notice sent to the parties on 18 July 2020. After that date, the claimant did not communicate with the tribunal or the respondents, did not indicate that the hearing dates were inconvenient, and did not apply for a postponement.
On 4 May 2021, neither the claimant nor her two witnesses had arrived by 10.00am. The tribunal waited until 10.30am and the clerk attempted to telephone the claimant on the mobile number given on the claim form, but there was no answer and the call went to voicemail. The hearing started shortly after 10.35am with no attendance or explanation from the claimant, while the respondent's solicitor attended.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and exercised its discretion under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 to strike out the complaints. In doing so, it noted that this was the fourth time the case had been listed for a final hearing, that the dispute concerned verbal comments allegedly made by Mr Singh in or around June 2018, and that any further postponement would cause additional delay and affect witness recollection. The tribunal also considered it would not be just to the respondents, particularly Mr Singh, to keep the allegation unresolved for many more months.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not separate the pleaded complaints by type; it states only that the claimant's complaints were struck out under Rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not set out merits findings on this claim; it records only that the claimant's complaints were struck out under Rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not set out merits findings on this claim; it records only that the claimant's complaints were struck out under Rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate the pleaded complaints by type; it states only that the claimant's complaints were struck out under Rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.